3 ms·

I think the Waste Management company is brilliant, and deserves respect. If you spend a hundred bucks for something that doesn't work, you would ask for a refun

by willz 18y ago

I think the Waste Management company is brilliant, and deserves respect. If you spend a hundred bucks for something that doesn't work, you would ask for a refund. I wonder why companies didn't do this before. Capitalism is dying because companies are no longer run by owners, but by "managers".

mlinsey 18y ago
"Capitalism is dying"? Where did this come from?
- willz 18y ago
  From John C. Bogle, the founder of Vanguard, the thesis of his book: "The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism"
gruseom 18y ago
I wonder why companies didn't do this before. I can shed light on one aspect of it. In large companies, if a failure is too big, it gets rebranded as a success. There are many strategies for doing this. (In one I saw, the failed project was spun off as a separate group to leverage all the "value" that had been created.) Absurd as this may be, it works, at least internally (and most failures are never made public). This used to puzzle me, but I think there's a simple reason for it. It's ok to discuss minor failures because these can be blamed on middle managers. Huge fiascos, on the other hand, can't be. A huge fiasco was a huge project to begin with, and huge projects are sponsored by executives. These leaders are, like Madame X from the Flintstones, "much too important to be lost". Ipso facto, they can't fail. What this means is that if the failure took place at the hands of a vendor, they will probably get away with it. Trying hold the vendor accountable makes you look bad. You can't brand the project a "success" and at the same time claim they didn't deliver. So Waste Management is unusual among large companies, which (I believe) are frequently taken to the cleaners on these enormous software projects. What's hard to explain is why they decided to take such public action. Perhaps they have a leader of unusual courage or integrity.
- vlad 18y ago
  They probably felt they were respected like crap by the vendor. When one party has a disagreement with another, and there's a clear and obvious disparity in some kind of standing (be it social, financial, racial, age), the party getting screwed over may feel they need to take action against this or have no trouble gaining confidence to stand up against a perceived injustice, since they're fighting two battles for the price of one. It doesn't matter if the second cause has nothing to do with anything, such as if the difference is only perceived or didn't matter in the situation. Whereas in actuality, the other company in question is likely simply trying to rip off everybody equally (equally, in other words, meaning as much as possible.)
- willz 18y ago
  Thanks for sharing the experience. Makes perfect sense. > What's hard to explain is why they decided to > take such public action. Perhaps they have a > leader of unusual courage or integrity. The company is run by owners, not managers. That's the hope of capitalism.

by willz 18y ago

mlinsey 18y ago

"Capitalism is dying"? Where did this come from?

willz 18y ago
From John C. Bogle, the founder of Vanguard, the thesis of his book: "The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism"

gruseom 18y ago

I wonder why companies didn't do this before. I can shed light on one aspect of it. In large companies, if a failure is too big, it gets rebranded as a success. There are many strategies for doing this. (In one I saw, the failed project was spun off as a separate group to leverage all the "value" that had been created.) Absurd as this may be, it works, at least internally (and most failures are never made public). This used to puzzle me, but I think there's a simple reason for it. It's ok to discuss minor failures because these can be blamed on middle managers. Huge fiascos, on the other hand, can't be. A huge fiasco was a huge project to begin with, and huge projects are sponsored by executives. These leaders are, like Madame X from the Flintstones, "much too important to be lost". Ipso facto, they can't fail. What this means is that if the failure took place at the hands of a vendor, they will probably get away with it. Trying hold the vendor accountable makes you look bad. You can't brand the project a "success" and at the same time claim they didn't deliver. So Waste Management is unusual among large companies, which (I believe) are frequently taken to the cleaners on these enormous software projects. What's hard to explain is why they decided to take such public action. Perhaps they have a leader of unusual courage or integrity.

vlad 18y ago
They probably felt they were respected like crap by the vendor. When one party has a disagreement with another, and there's a clear and obvious disparity in some kind of standing (be it social, financial, racial, age), the party getting screwed over may feel they need to take action against this or have no trouble gaining confidence to stand up against a perceived injustice, since they're fighting two battles for the price of one. It doesn't matter if the second cause has nothing to do with anything, such as if the difference is only perceived or didn't matter in the situation. Whereas in actuality, the other company in question is likely simply trying to rip off everybody equally (equally, in other words, meaning as much as possible.)
willz 18y ago
Thanks for sharing the experience. Makes perfect sense. > What's hard to explain is why they decided to > take such public action. Perhaps they have a > leader of unusual courage or integrity. The company is run by owners, not managers. That's the hope of capitalism.